Grandpa, Aunty M,

First, I apologize for over-reacting. I began some thread-drift because of some recent reading I was doing after the Mad Cow incident two weeks or so ago. There is a connection, tho, and the connection is the federal government’s caving in to business interests at the risk and expense of the public consumer.

Second, yes, I recognize there is journalistic sensationalism in all this, but I wasn’t responding to that, as I didn’t read the newspaper articles. I saw the story on Canadian Public Broadcasting, which related the same facts, however.

Third, believe it or not, I’m not anti-business. I’m not anti-fish farming, altho I personally choose not to eat much farmed fish primarily because of the feed additives, secondly because it isn't the best fish. I’m not anti-commercial fishing. I am anti-blind greed, wherein a business interest pursues profit up to, and including, knowingly purveying contaminated food to unsuspecting consumers - who are unsuspecting for the very reason that they collectively fund FDA and USDA to protect their consumer interest, not the fish farms or meat-packing business interest. These consumers, including me until two weeks ago, thought meat products were inspected and tested at a rate to ensure at least statistical confidence in their safety, but they aren’t. So when the government makes a statement that meat or fish is safe, when they know damn well they don’t have the information to support the contention, I’m p!ssed, cuz lying ain’t cool. I’m anti that same greed that motivates meat-packers to operate unsafe plants because they can regard their largely Hispanic work force as expendable. I’m pro-business that operates on a level playing field, legally and ethically.

Fourth, I was deliberately taking a friendly poke at Grandpa’s conservative politics. Grandpa seldom passed up an opportunity, indeed has created his own opportunities, to denigrate anything potentially liberal or Democrat. Since the anti-public safety conditions at FDA and USDA are the product of conservative Republican legislation, it seems fair to take a jab and point that out. I still don’t think I’m a bleeding-heart liberal (I work with one, and we are miles apart on so many things), and I could vote for conservatives who don’t care about me and even disdain me, but I cannot vote for those who knowingly create by their legislation, contamination of the air I breathe, the water I drink, and the food I eat. Hence our political differences.

Fifth, yes, Grandpa, you could acquire cancer in Alaska’s pristine wilderness. However, we both know that the likelihood is exponentially greater living downwind from a polluting power plant or similar facility, or obtaining our drinking water that’s been contaminated by industrial waste, or by consuming contaminated food that our bought-off government assures us is safe.

Lastly, I’m not totally naive nor idealistic. I don’t expect my world to be pristine, and I don’t advocate the extreme positions of some of the leading environmental groups, just as I don’t advocate the extreme anti-environmental and anti-public safety positions of many contemporary Republican officials. I agree that a lot of the opposition to fish farming is coming from the commercial fishing industry. I also believe that environmental groups opposed to fish farming would serve the public better by focusing on basics like air and water pollution, wilderness protection, and improving logging practices, etc. And in the interests of a balanced perspective, I’m wide open to reading title suggestions that portray the food industry as concerned about worker and consumer safety, if there is such a thing.

Lastly, lastly, you think PEW has an axe to grind; I’m not so sure. They report that global warming exists only because most credible scientists in the field, regardless of who they work for, believe the evidence points to that conclusion. Scientists in the field who believe otherwise tend to be employed by those who profit by contributing to greenhouse gases. I’m not surprised. Kind of reminds me of the division within science about the health hazards of tobacco. All those who think tobacco isn’t a health hazard work for the industry.

Lastly, lastly, lastly (oh sure!), we have to meet some time. I’m gonna’ disappoint you by not being a wild-eyed radical anything. Well, I did used to be a radical fly fisherman, but I’ve mellowed a lot.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.